Talk:BDORT/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Another View

It has come to the attention of many individuals, both in and out of the medical field, that there have been erroneous postings on Wikipedia with regards to the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test developed and patented by Yoshiaki Omura, M.D., Sc.D.. The motives and identities of those who posted erroneous and discrediting information contradicting the available facts about this test and about Dr. Omura are not the purpose of this posting.

The purpose of this posting is to inform the reader of the efficacy of this test. In pursuing a U.S. patent on the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT), Dr. Omura, had to provide evidence of the efficacy of this test to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. This evidence was provided by affidavits taken under oath under penalty of imprisonment if a false statement is made.

The following individuals provided affidavits in support of the efficacy of Dr. Omura’s invention. These affidavits are part of the extensive evaluation history of Dr. Omura’s U.S. patent. Moreover, the evaluation history of the patent is open for public inspection upon request to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

The following well-established individuals from the U.S. and Japan provided affidavits under oath with clinical evidence supporting the efficacy of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. Also provided are the credentials for each affiant. Some of these people have impeccable credentials from both the U.S. and Japan.

• Yasuhiro Shimotsuura, M.D., Leader of Digestive Organ Research at Kurume University School of Medicine and Director of Medicine at St. Maria’s Hospital, the 2nd largest hospital in Japan

• Chifuyu Takeshige, M.D., Ph.D., Prof. & Chairman of the Dept. of Physiology and Dean of Showa University School of Medicine in Tokyo, Japan, and former Visiting Scholar of Dept. of Physiology at University of Pennsylvania

• Maja Tcherkezova, M.D., National Institute of Neurology in Sophia, Bulgaria

• Brother Michael Losco, Assistant Prof. of Electrical Engineering at Manhattan College

• Takesuke Muteki, M.D., Ph.D., Prof. & Chairman of the Dept. of Anesthesiology at Kurume University Medical School in Japan

• Noryuki Tani, D.D.S., Associate Prof. at Seijo Dental School in Japan

• Albert Cooke, M.D., Prof. and former Chairman of Dept. of Neurosurgery at New York Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn

• Jason Shu, OBGYN, Member of State Board of Medicine at Pennsylvania State

• Joel Friedman, D.D.S., Prof. of Dentistry at New York University

• Hiroaki Nakajima, M.D., Ph.D., Director of Pulmonary Division and Associate Prof. of the Dept. of Internal Medicine of Showa University School of Medicine in Tokyo, Japan and he was also former Visiting Prof. at Mayo Clinic

• Simon Freed, Ph.D., Research Scientist of Brookhaven National Laboratory and Prof. of Neurology and Prof. of Biochemistry at New York Medical College

Some of the information described in the affidavits are also documented in the well-known television science documentary on the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, from Tokai Television Station from Nagoya City, which consists of two-30 minute series documentary (comparable to NOVA in the USA). The English versions of the documentaries are also available for English-speaking people.

In addition to the 11 affiants cited above, readers are directed to the Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics Research, The International Journal, of which Dr. Omura is the founder and editor-in-chief. On the board of the journal, there are many notable physicians listed who are chairmen of departments of major universities, including Prof. Bjorn Nordenstorm-former Chairman of the Nobel Prize Committee, and former deans of medical schools, many of whom participated in the symposium organized by Dr. Omura and his associates in Japan and U.S.A.

I would like to end this with a quote from the famous founder of Sony, Mr. Masaru Ibuka, who served as the honorary President of the Japan Bi-Digital O-Ring Test Medical Society. Mr. Ibuka also encouraged some of his close associates to study and evaluate the validity and application of the BDORT. Mr. Ibuka was very interested in and satisfied with what he and his associates found of the BDORT. Mr. Ibuka described Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test in his auto-biography and also made the following public statement:

“The Bi-Digital O-Ring Test is a necessary tool for the paradigm shift from 20th century medicine to 21st century medicine.”

Either engage in debate or be quiet. Addhoc 11:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

A bit of quick Googling would seem to indicate that Bjorn Nordenstrom (misspelled above) is very much an alternative medicine person, often associated with Becker, and that even by sympathetic accounts he was reviled by his former colleagues for his new researches and his health suffered for it. I find no indication of any reputable publication on his part on the topics claimed. Perhaps more diligent researches by proponents will in time duly locate them and present them for consideration. Arcsincostan 23:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Abbaenok

Abbaenok, I am assuming you are a new Wikipedia (WP) user, so please be sure to carefully review our posting policies. I also left you a message in your Talk page, that I hope you have read. Be sure that when you post in this Discussion page, you:

1. post to the end of the page, not the beginning
2. only mention facts that are corroborated by verifiable reliable sources.

Note that reliable sources cannot be sources that are owned by or related to Dr. Omura, such as his journal or Web sites, unless we are adding some minor CV details. Anything that attempts to verify his extraordinary claims must have an extraordinary proof in the form of an independent, neutral and highly reliable mainstream medical body or publication. If you make reference to the NZ Tribunal report, which we do consider very reliable, please do us a big favor and read the entire discussion history here on the Talk page (including the Archives), as we analyzed that report very carefully. We specifically noted that although the Tribunal recognized that Gorringe's specific version of BDORT/PMRT varied from Omura's, the Tribunal ruled on BDORT/PMRT generically, and its statement about BDORT/PMRT relates to the generic method, not Gorringe's variant. Again, as an Encyclopedia we are not interested in original research, or personal knowledge or anything that is not clearly sourced from secondary neutral sources. Clearly a BDORT focused site is not a neutral site for evaluating BDORT, even if it met all other criteria. Thanks, Crum375 20:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done an experiment.

1) I have left most of the Tribunial info (some of it is pointless since people can read the report if they choose - that's what web links are for!) but added in the quote that has been repeatedly deleted: as a test of NPOV in fact. Crum375, you say correctly, the Tribunial gave their opinion on PMRT generically - which is exactly what I said in a previous version that was temporarily agreed on (See Para 17 July archive, At The Risk. . ) . But also note, not contradicting this but adding to it, that they did not actually test anything, they opined. This has to be made clear for Neutrality sake. Also I repeat for the XXX time - they were not experts in the right field!!!!!!!!!!

2) Took out all obvious WP:OR.

3) Deleted incorrect description. I have put up a correct one that was deleted - if even that cannot be agreed on, then we have little hope!!

4) Deleted repeated variations on "this has not been proved etc . ." as has been discussed and the liability idea is catered for by basic encyclopedic language like according to etc. See also previous long discussion on this, wont repeat here.

5) Deleted obvious language that is POV and not just basic reporting.

6) Added in Shinnick info - it is Relaible, Neutral and MD peer-reviewed - this has been established: the ONLY reason not to include this is censorship, ie POV.

Lets see what happens now. I am trying to get a middle ground.--Richardmalter 04:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Took out another one of (4) above. Also:

5.1) Shinnick info, as independent and reliable and peer-reviewed, makes any statement to the contrary anywhere in the article = to moon is made of cheese.--Richardmalter 04:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT

Attempts to delete duly cited critical objective reputable evaluation and to place in the entry in their stead, eg, an evaluation by a person (Shinnick) whose claim to expertise is that he is a former Olympian who teaches sports medicine and alternative medicine, as published not in a reputable peer-reviewed journal as claimed but in an 'alternative' medicine journal which describes three people avoiding eye contact as 'triple-blinded' are attempts to POV in the name of NPOV, specifically to turn the entry into an advertising and promotional effort denying clear, appropriately cited evidence of quackery. This is unacceptable according to WP policy. I would, again, suggest professional advocates and proponents who claim they merit scientific and medical respectability actually present their claims of Omura and BDORT to proper evaluation and scrutiny rather than attempting to apply an alternative medicine reality distortion field to the entry. Arcsincostan 04:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Arcsincostan, the Shinnick study was published in an MD peer-reviewed, neutral, reliable publication. Note I have not claimed anything about how blind it was. I am just citing it in a basic reporting format, since it was an independent test - and other MDs (listed) participated. This is WP 'fact', and so should be added. From a WP criteria, your comment "not in a reputable" is opinion. The validity of the Shinnick info I hashed out with Crum375 at very great length - and he/she finally admitted that it was WP OK, from all considerations (only argued fir the reason for putting in the info, which the reply to is why not? in just the same was as giving a Quackwatch ref at the end, why not? Answer: POV.). This is discussion history. Other judgements you make about it fall under WP:OR/POV (even if you are 'right'). I am going strictly by the rules - but they cut both ways. I hope you see what I am saying. Please see if you can see some acceptable points in the version I put up. Thank you.--Richardmalter 05:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I see what you're saying perfectly well. You're a professional who utilizes BDORT in his practice, as you've acknowledged, and you believe the test is efficacious based on your experience. Your experience is unverified by any credible external verifiable source, and you're attempting to shape the entry into what you believe to be 'truth.' 'Truth' in this instance requires characterizing alternative medicine as mainstream and disregarding or misrepresenting mainstream critical views. I believe most objective observers would judge this to be an attempt at advertising and promotion, but, hey, what do I know? I think that claiming you can capture special magical solar qi energy on index cards then wrapping them in aluminum foil and touching them on people's heads is unlikely to effect a cure for Alzheimer's. Obviously I must be of unsound judgement and those who feel this is clearly in the realm of demonstrated scientific fact are those of sound judgement, right? Feh. Unsinn. Arcsincostan 05:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• I would offer, then, as afterthought and footnote, epimetheus with a bit of old soft-shoe, the following link for those truly open to alternative approaches. [1]
• PS: I expect full credit for this approach when Omura writes it up.

Please note that I am only arguing anything only based on strict WP criteria. We have no choice but to do this; all other ideas we may have can be deleted viz WP so have no WP place here. Lets let the reader decide! Please see above comments for my edits, thank you.--Richardmalter 06:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• The reader is supposed to decide after you've removed all the properly sourced verifiable negative cites and the description of them? Decide what? On the basis of what? Arcsincostan 06:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• If there's a better example of Wikipedia's limitations, I'd like to know what it is. Comparable, doubtless. Better . . . not likely. Ciao for now. Arcsincostan 06:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: I'm not kidding – I expect full credit when Omura writes up his Miraculous Ninja Colds Technique in the 'prestigious' Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics Research, The International Journal. Please have the credit read Teal Cyfre, though, and I would also like all those really cool initials and titles he awards – the FICAE, the OBE, VOR/DME/LORAN and whatever else may be lying about at the time. Fair enough? Arcsincostan 06:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but while I take the presentation of the entry as seriously as – well, a heart attack, or cancer – I can't take these representations seriously. Let's see now, we have the 'scientific' evaluation and presentation of the remote application of Qi energy to heal patients 5,000 kilometers distant, the curing of 'juvenile Alzheimer's' (a 'discovery' of the diagnostician, via BDORT, of course), the detection of electromagnetic fields via BDORT as an environental stress causing illness, the evaluation of telomere levels and by implication lifespan by BDORT, the establishing of the efficacy of psychic healing and psychic surgery via the application of what Omura's researches determine is likely to be Qi energy in the hands of a practitioner who is channeling the spirit of a dead physician . . . what am I forgetting, offhand . . . oh yes, that people subject to such 'scientific' evaluation are, by any objective rational measure more likely to suffer and die.

Perhaps that part isn't so funny, after all. Arcsincostan 06:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It cant be the only credible etc. . evaluation, because the Shinnick study is too - this has been decided on on WP Talk page perviously - it is a MD peer-reviewed study. Just one of many examples where your version is not OK. Referenceing WP:pseudoscience page is not a OK citattion, also quackwatch same: they are not MD/PhD peer-reviewed, we have to have same criteria for both 'sides'. I know the WP:3R rule but come on please.--Richardmalter 08:11, 2 August 2006

I added in citation links to the Shinnick study. Also put in accurate description.--Richardmalter 12:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• You're quite wrong. The consensus, in fact, was that an alternative medicine journal, which is what Shinnick's 'study' was published in, was not appropriate per WP criteria to attest to an alternative medicine's approach being verified by mainstream evaluation. Arcsincostan 14:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please review the discussion. You are mistaken. It was concluded after getting down to fine details of what satisfied WP criteria, that it was Reliable (peer-reviewed by MDs) and Neutral (an independent journal from anything related to Omura/BDORT etc). Crum375 only argued about the usefulness of the info, that is all. His 'proposed' criteria of having to be a mainstream medical journal did not hold up to WP criteria. Again, the citation is Reliable and Neutral.--Richardmalter 23:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Crum375, then questioned that the peer-review statusu of this article - which is clearly stated on the website of the journal by MD editorial board, might not be as 'peer-reviewed' as another journal/citation etc. Which is of course POV, bias and WP:OR. MD Peer-review means what it says. He then stated that it was by a non MD. This is also not WP criteria, he was a PhD. Next, many MDs are directly documented as actively involved in the research. This is all repeats now, lets move on please.--Richardmalter 23:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Further points are:

1) Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree [[2]]. The Tribunial experts where expert in another field - ie not electromagnetism [by the way have you read The Body Electric, Robert O Becker? - some interesting documentation of how even after rigorous scientific tests demonstrated electric propeorties of the body unknown before - the mainstream medical community could not accept it because of their egos, prejudice, and 'disbelief' - even after the most full rigourous (photographic) scientific proof).

2) Remember that this entry is about Omura and BDORT. At great length re Gorringe is not in place - all we need to do is give the info about the Tribunial re BDORT - going to great lengths to show that the Tribunial dismissed Gorringe's practices is not for here. --Richardmalter 23:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• 1) That is a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation. There was no such consensus. Shinnick's 'qualification' is that he has a PhD in Sports Medicine. He is also a professional who derives his living from 'alternative' approaches and is therefore not an authority on medical or scientific evaluation. The journal in question does indeed list peer-review as a feature. This is an unverified claim, and there was most certainly no consensus that it represented credible verifiable mainstream scientific or medical assessment. If there had been it would have been wrong. Any other questions?

• 2) An attempt to remove the Tribunal's evaluation in the course of the case of Gorringe is transparent slanting of the article to an advertisement for Omura and BDORT. Again, any other questions?

• 3) Bottom line: You need credible scientific or medical sources to claim or support the statement of scientific or medical status. It's quite simple, really. Arcsincostan 00:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion first

I think it will become clear to all that the only logical way to approach this controversial article is via prior discussion here. Since no one except for me seems to view the post-AFD version as stable, I will accept the next best version, which in my opinion is Arcsincostan's, as his current version appears to be well supported by reliable sources. So, for the time being, until there is consensus that we need to discuss things here prior to changes in the article, I will revert to the version that seems best sourced, verifiable and most neutral, and overall WP-like to me. Crum375 00:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Fine by me. Arcsincostan 00:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[[3]] peer reviewed status of Shinnick article. Crum375, when even a correct description is deleted or reverted (by you) I do not have much faith in the WP neutrality of the contributors. If you cannot see the WP:OR, POV, NON WP OK citations then I think we need some Admins here for an extended period. BTW you also choose to ignore the Admins when they do chime in, when Xolov stated quite clearly that the article is Notable on its own, you try hard to reinterprete that and I had to ask him to clarify to clear it up. Your NON WP bias is very big. In general your statement above sounds 'reasonable'; on anaylsis it holds little water. --Richardmalter 06:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You all also have a habit of ignoring: 1) Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree [[4]]. The Tribunial experts where expert in another field - ie not electromagnetism (the EM) claims of the BDORT are very clear - the Tribunial experts might have been such on car radiator repairs. --Richardmalter 06:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Feh. Unsinn. – Prof Cannell, who testified as an expert witness before the Tribunal, held a Chair as Professor of Biophysics at the University of London. Dr Welch was called by the Tribunal precisely because of his having qualification in alternative medicine as well as in conventional medicine. Have you actually read the report at all? You’re busily scrambling to get their evaluation of BDORT off the page while claiming a PhD in Sports Medicine (presented in an ‘alternative medicine’ journal – which hardly rises to the level of WP criterion ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' in any other than the most literal definition of the word 'extra-ordinary') is appropriate qualification. Omura is actually evaluating Qi while characterizing it as a vaguely described 'electrophysical' phenomenon in the same sense that 19th Century employment of the word 'electric' might apply to very nearly anything by the standards of contemporary science. Try reading the descriptions some time, and tell us with a straight face it isn't really Qi he's describing and invoking. (Or spelling the word ‘tribunal’ properly, if only once.) Ciao for now . . . . Arcsincostan 07:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• PS: Question for the Proponents: Are you under the impression that anyone directed by the 'Neutrality Disputed' notice on the article to this Discussion section will be favorably impressed by the force, character, and evidence of your arguments? I quite sincerely would like to know, as a point of curiousity. Arcsincostan 08:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• PPS: A Few Additional Points:

1) Richard, the stated purpose of ‘’Medical Acupuncture,’’ the journal you cite, is one of advocacy, specifically advocacy of alternative medicine. Please feel free to read the material on the link you so thoughtfully provided, which makes that point. The fact that in the course of its advocacy it employs a process of peer review is commendable. It does not, however, transform it into anything other than what it characterizes itself as being – a tool of advocacy. A tool of advocacy cannot, by definition, be a reliable source.

2) The admin in question stated: ‘The result of the debate was Keep There is a consensus that Dr. Omura is notable for the controversies surrounding his "treatments", although the merit of these treatments is highly dubious. Xoloz 17:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)’ If you want to interpret this as stating that the entry is notable on its own, that’s your privilege. I rather doubt, however, that a typical reader would be inclined to interpret that sentence that way.

3) What part of deleting whole swaths of material from the entry at a single sweep constitutes its being a ‘minor’ edit?

4) Is a dictionary available which would provide some possible clue as to your personal use of the English language in those areas where it appears to a simple observer not to conform to standard usage, such as ‘electromagnetism’ being applied to measurement of Qi or the Life Force, or whatever precisely it is that’s being ‘evaluated’ ‘scientifically’ here? It would be helpful for those of us figuratively if not literally slow on the uptake.

My thanks, and best . . . Arcsincostan 09:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Arc.,

1) No. The purpose of the American Academy of Medical Acupuncture is to promote the integration of concepts from traditional and modern forms of acupuncture with Western medical training and thereby synthesize a more comprehensive approach to health care. This is written by and for Board Certified MDs. You or others may not like it, but there it is.

2) No. Re Xoloz: I asked him to and he clarified this: you are selectively quoting what he wrote. He ruled that it was Notable anyway - he said I should quote him (I have not done so here) if anyone argued otherwise.

3) I apologize if I accidentally used the minor edit button incorrectly.

4) Re the experts in the wrong field: however much you try, they are not experts in electromagnetism. Omura et al clearly state that it is an "electromagnetic resonance phenomenon" that is the key factor in the BDORT. They were not experts in the appropriate field. I know you et al wont like it but there it is.

P.S. you were right earlier, I was inaccurate to state there was consensus re the Shinnick article being Neutral and Relaible. I should have said that this WP criteria has been established.--Richardmalter 10:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

WP CRITERIA FIRST

Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree. Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing.[[5]]. In fact, the Tribunial expert cannot be claimed at all to be experts in evaluating the BDORT. Any half-learned medicine man can tell you that living cells are electromagentically sensitive to unbelievably small electromagnetic fields [Becker et al]; that glands such as the pineal gland can prompt a cascade of chemical reactions is primary school stuff. That these can affect muscle strength is kindergarden play material. They got the wrong experts. --Richardmalter 10:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Arc., I deleted this section: Affiliations/Credentials. It is WP:OR from top to bottom.

Crum 375, your willingness to agree to things that are obviously far from WP criteria is again major documentation of your bias. Please argue very specifically on WP criteria. Thank you.--Richardmalter 10:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I have argued very specifically on WP criteria, for many weeks, just short of being blue in the face, to no avail with you, as you decided that I am 'biased'. Therefore, I will simply choose the version that seems closest to WP requirements to me. Right now, as one sample point, as I repeated in the past countless times, the NZ report is the only valid scientific review of BDORT in the article, and hence it should be presented upfront, right in the lead in paragraph. Crum375 12:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I have argued with you and shown you to be sometimes not correct in terms of WP criteria (not because I think you are biased). Please dont use that as an excuse. Your opinion that the NZ report is the only scientific report is just that: your opinion. The Shinnick article is Reliable, Neutral, MD Peer Reviewed. You are factually very clearly incorrect. Your bias again. I do not think you are biased, I have documented it in detail: down to your clear misrepresentation of events, when we did not do 'as you wished' - and you disrupted a unique opportunity for agreement to emerge. In addition, you ignore what an Admin ruled: that we do not have to have the Tribunial report up front becuase the page is Notable in itself: see Zolox's remarks if you need reminding. Again you are ruled incorrect (no matter how hard you tried to interpret his remarks to fit your bias; I questioned him and he clarified - which you ignore.) You also selectively ignore or select WP criteria: they were not expert in the right field - however much you dont like this fact. Also, do not think that I value my time less than you value yours. My patience is also being tested. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmalter (talk • contribs) 14:41, August 3, 2006

• Xoloz said no such thing. What he actually said was:

'Under deletion policy, I am fairly constrained to consider the course of the debate at the AfD, and cannot give much (if any) weight to talk page comments. This is what I did. However, my comments at the AfD are not at all binding on the course of the article; AfD only concludes whether an article should be kept or deleted (sometimes together with a limited set of options of the type of keep to be employed: eg. Merge, Redirect, etc.) I stand behind my rationale because I do believe it is the reasonable thing to conclude impartially from the AfD debate, but my remarks on Dr. Omura's repute are not at all binding -- I was only explaining how I came to conclude that the article should be kept. In a way, my remark was a "worst-case senario": even if this man is a charlatan, he still belongs in our encyclopedia. Now that the article has been kept, it is up to you and other editors more knowledgeable on the subject to flesh out on the talk page how credible (or not) the doctor is, based on evidence available. In that endeavor, my comments are utterly irrelevant -- and if anyone says differently, do feel free to quote me on that. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 05:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)' [[6]]

• The comment in question: 'The result of the debate was Keep There is a consensus that Dr. Omura is notable for the controversies surrounding his "treatments", although the merit of these treatments is highly dubious. Xoloz 17:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)' [7]

Richard, it is your right to think or argue that I am biased. In my case, I don't have to think it - you earn a living from BDORT, so you are biased by definition. Let's then just assume for now we are all biased, although personally my only bias is, as I admitted long ago, striving to improve WP. I think it is very clear that we will not get anywhere productive by repeated reversions. I think it is clear the only logical way to proceed is to discuss the issues here first, and modify the article only when we reach consensus. Crum375 16:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Faith-Based or Magical Belief Systems

Omura's armamentarium and researches is transparently a faith-based or magical belief system. Their notions of evidence and logic are those of True Believers. They are not subject to falsification and have demonstrated no interest whatsoever in actually attempting to establish a scientific as opposed to pseudoscientific claim to validity, eagerly clutching at the mantle of 'scientific' authority all the way. Personally, if I were in need of an alternative approach of this sort, I'd simply seek out a Qi master and avoid the scientific mumbo jumbo. There might be something there, even if it has no claim to 'science.' As to Omura, to steal from a daughter of Baltimore on the subject of Oakland . . . 'There's no there there.' As to the character of this discussion: It's effectively pointless. The proponents of the faith of Omura will argue endlessly that it is scientific truth that the sun stood still in the sky, that the Virgin Mary gave virgin birth to the son of God, and that Omura will be able to guarantee you'll live forever if only you'll apply Special Solar Energy Stored Paper to the top of your head periodically. – Perhaps I exaggerate slightly. If anyone of good faith and sound mind cares to discuss the entry in this space, I, for my part, will, if I see it, be prepared to discuss the matter in future. Arcsincostan 16:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Xoloz, In a way, my remark was a "worst-case senario": even if this man is a charlatan, he still belongs in our encyclopedia., is what I was referring to. I should have quoted you directly, I apologize. If you did not mean that the article is Notable in itself, then we need here to repeat all over an ddecide this once and for all.--Richardmalter 00:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Arc, just as one example the Affiliations/Credentials citations show how other people described Omura, you are using long stretch of WP:OR to derive information that you are arguing is fact. It just does not meet any WP criteria. Then, since you do not argue further, and until you can find a very clear and strictly WP reason for it, the Shinnick article is Reliable, Neutral and MD Peer-Reviewed (PhD/MD conducted research) - this is established and should be used in the article.

Selectively applying WP criteria and ignoring when dislike 'not on'

Crum375, you give opinion that Arcs, version seems to you WP:OK when it very clearly is not even close to it on many points that I have documented repeatedly. Your notion of using it as a basis for change has no hope. You tried to do this before, and I trusted you, which turned out to be very unproductive. But to take the essence of what you are saying, we would have to get down to a bare minimum article that was agreed on all round and then follow your suggestion. Other than that is nonsense. You selectively ignore WP criteria. Repeatedly. You select WP criteria that suits you and however much I ask you to define and then I present material that satisfies the WP criteria you then come up with arguments against anything you dont like. As they say here, 'its not on'. Consider my suggestion please. Also I suggest you dont expect me to stop reverting when you do the same thing without a justifiable WP reason. Its just like you making unilateral changes to the article (which I had to press you long to finally admitt) and then soon after asking no one else to make unilateral changes!!

1) Experts not in right field - opinion only useful since they mention BDORT 1.5) We cant selectively quote Tribunial to make people happy - censorship not allowed on WP. 2) Shinnick material WP OK 100% - affects way other info can be described of course, like any other info that bears on other info. 3) Arc's WP:OR not OK. Description not correct. Repeated info not OK. Repeated "not proven" lines not OK. Non-citated info not OK. --Richardmalter 00:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I have addressed each of your points in the past, many or most of them several times. I think the correct way to do this is via discussion here, prior to editing the article. Crum375 01:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Faith

There is no reasoning with faith. There is no reasoning with the faith of Omura's adherents and proponents. Such, at least, is my judgement, and I will no longer engage in the attempt. If anyone has any material that rises to the level of respectability, I'll be more than happy to consider and discuss it, as I harbor no illusion of inerrancy or infallibility. I will not, however, argue endlessly with delusion, with madness. If that's an 'attack' that violates Wikipedia criteria, tough. Arcsincostan 01:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Shinnick info has been established as Reliable, Neutral MD Peer Reviewed (just one example of how I am arguing only on strict WP criteria: and how it is being potrayed otherwise). This is not faith - it a WP OK citation, research carried out by a PhD and several MDs - one eminent. I understand no one likes it; but that 'like' is not a WP acceptable critera.--Richardmalter 02:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Shinnick et al research WP Reliable, Neutral, MD peer-reviewed, established

Then, since no one here is coming up with WP reasons to delete WP OK material; nor WP reasons for keeping not WP OK material, the only thing to do from a WP perspective is revert to a more WP OK version.--Richardmalter 02:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, the difference between your bias and mine for WP purposes, is that you are prepared to ignore, selectively use and filter WP criteria, misrepresent events, ask others to not act as you yourself have acted hours before, in order to get the article that you seem to be aiming for. See my proposal just above if you are really interested in a stable article.--Richardmalter 02:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In point of fact, Crum375 reflects no particular bias. He's simply being WP:Polite. Richard, you and the other members of the Faith of Omura have been over this ground, and you have been politely and patiently addressed a thousand times. Even Buddha loses patience by the third time. There is no point, whatsoever, in entertaining you as you cover the same ground over and over. It's all been said. Try reading it and taking it in. It isn't impossible. If it is, tough. Arcsincostan 02:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: Endless repitition simply underscores the fact that you folks don't actually have any credible research to cite to bolster your claims. It proves the critics' point, not yours. If you insist on clinging to your Faith, that's your privilege. Just don't expect othes to want to share the Kool-Aid.

• Look, dude, you and your folks are seriously arguing or at least arguing that Omura's research in Brazil was reputable scientific blah-blah-blah. That was 'research' in which he 'scientifically' determined via BDORT that PSYCHIC HEALING was real and worked via Qi and Acupuncture. What planet was this research actually conducted on? Arcsincostan 03:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia

In the end, with all sympathy for the nobler aspects of this experiment and the efforts of those involved, I think this entry illustrates the limitations of this process. One presumes that at some point, hopefully soon, Wikipedia will fork into a more reliable form or forms. For my part, I would hope so, because I think the ideal of accessibility and collaboration is a worthy one. I've given you a good entry. See if you can keep it, and, better still, improve it.

tealcyfre aka Arcsincostan 03:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Arc., I only repeat because you all effectively force me to. I was originally told by SlimVirgin to use WP rules well. I do this. But people dont like what results. They repeatedly try to argue against clear WP guidelines. I am 'forced' to engage repeatedly in order to clarify. I dont like it either. It's a huge waste of time. Either WP changes the rules - and I agree there is a lot of scope to do so - or we play by them strictly both ways. I am doing this and people dont like it. I can't help that. In the meanwhile we have WP rules as they are. --Richardmalter 13:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard, you have exceeded the WP:3RR and you are overall pushing a POV version by deleting the only WP-acceptable assessment of BDORT from the lead-in. My understanding is that violating the 3RR can result in a block. Crum375 14:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum, you are factually incorrect. You are also discriminating, as Arc, also breached the 3R rule - but I did not call him on it. It is not the only WP-acceptable assessment of it. Second, it has not been established that Notability depends on the Tribunial report. You can discuss that here first if you like of course. The Shinnick material is also an assessment. Actually its a real test, whereas the other was a armchair opinion - by non-experts. You are again selectively ignoring WP criteria. You are pushing a version that:

1) selectively quotes from a report to fit a bias; does not contain direct quotes that do not fit that bias from the same source.

2) has factually incorrect description of the BDORT

3) is full of non(WP)-citated, WP:OR, whole paragraphs of it.

4) omitts established WP Reliable, Neutral info: Shinnick info becuase it doesn't fit the bias

5) Uses expert testimony from experts not on the right subject

etc, etc.

If you can refute any of the above, please do; but please dont make general statements, make your case for why for eg: you thing WP Neutral, Reliable material should not be included? Specifically address the material concerned. Why inocrrect information should be included? Why WP:OR should be included. Please attempt to do this if you think you can. You are pushing a version that is as I describe it above - this is completely contrary to stated written WP criteria. I have also not reverted most of the time, unlike you for no WP reason and against WP reasons. --Richardmalter 23:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)(UTC)

Richard, I will resume addressing single issues of the ones you raise. Here I will address the issue of NZ Tribunal inclusion in the lead-in section. You keep saying that because your assessment of the AfD was that the NZ report was not crucial for notability purposes, then we can drop it from the lead-in, and maybe even from the article. I beg to disagree with you. Even if I agreed with your assessment of the AfD that the NZ report is not crucial for notability (which I don't), that is immaterial. The AfD normally addresses notability, to decide whether the article stays or goes. If it's not notable, all further discussion is essentially moot, whereas if it is notable, then we can roll up our sleeves and fix it up and bring it to WP standards (assuming it's not already there). So even if I hypothetically agreed with you that the NZ report is not crucial for notability purposes, it is still very crucial for the lead-in, as it is the only reliably sourced mainstream medical or scientific review we have of BDORT. Since BDORT is definitely a primary focus of the article (it dramatically adds to Omura's notability - much of the AfD as well as most our discussions here are focused on BDORT), its only known evaluation by a mainstream scientific body belongs up front and center in the lead-in. Any attempt to remove it from there would be non-neutral. Thanks, Crum375 23:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I think your logic is incorrect. Assuming the article is Notable in itself, what WP criteria exactly are you quoting that says that an assessment of the subject of an article needs to go early or first in the article (and cant equally go lower down as in a normal encyclopedic entry!)? You also do not take into account point 5 above. Again you are very selectively applying WP criteria. You can continue to argue till you are "blue in the face", but I will insist on consistent application of WP criteria. And again, I note that you do not challenge the WP improperness (1-5 above) of Arc.'s, version. I do not intend to shift focus away from these very obvious documented WP problems. I will not agree to a version that is so obviously contrary to WP guidelines, and therefore do not agree to you reverting to this. --Richardmalter 01:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I'll deviate from my rule and address both your points. As far as why the NZ report has to be in the lead-in, the lead-in must contain a summary of the main points of the article. The article has a primary focus on BDORT so BDORT must be in the lead-in. The only scientific mainstream assessment of BDORT that we are aware of, i.e. the NZ report, must also go there. These are the highlights of the article and as such are part of the lead-in summary. Anything else is contradictory to WP policy. For your convenience, I am quoting from Lead Section:

The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establishing context, and defining the terms. It should contain several paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies, if there are any. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, should be written in a clear and accessible style, should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text, and should encourage the reader to want to read more.

Now let me address your point #5, which is "experts not in the right subject". I simply disagree. This is a medical question, and these are medical experts. All MD's are trained in Physics, Chemistry, Biology and other related sciences in addition to medicine proper, since the human body is a machine that obeys the laws of nature. I don't see any problem with the opinions these eminently qualified medical experts provide to the Tribunal in their testimony.

Thanks, Crum375 01:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia

In the end, with all sympathy for the nobler aspects of this experiment and the efforts of those involved, I think this entry illustrates the limitations of this process. One presumes that at some point, hopefully soon, Wikipedia will fork into a more reliable form or forms. For my part, I would hope so, because I think the ideal of accessibility and collaboration is a worthy one. I've given you a good entry. See if you can keep it, and, better still, improve it.

tealcyfre aka Arcsincostan 03:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Arc., I only repeat because you all effectively force me to. I was originally told by SlimVirgin to use WP rules well. I do this. But people dont like what results. They repeatedly try to argue against clear WP guidelines. I am 'forced' to engage repeatedly in order to clarify. I dont like it either. It's a huge waste of time. Either WP changes the rules - and I agree there is a lot of scope to do so - or we play by them strictly both ways. I am doing this and people dont like it. I can't help that. In the meanwhile we have WP rules as they are. --Richardmalter 13:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard, you have exceeded the WP:3RR and you are overall pushing a POV version by deleting the only WP-acceptable assessment of BDORT from the lead-in. My understanding is that violating the 3RR can result in a block. Crum375 14:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum, you are factually incorrect. You are also discriminating, as Arc, also breached the 3R rule - but I did not call him on it. It is not the only WP-acceptable assessment of it. Second, it has not been established that Notability depends on the Tribunial report. You can discuss that here first if you like of course. The Shinnick material is also an assessment. Actually its a real test, whereas the other was a armchair opinion - by non-experts. You are again selectively ignoring WP criteria. You are pushing a version that:

1) selectively quotes from a report to fit a bias; does not contain direct quotes that do not fit that bias from the same source.

2) has factually incorrect description of the BDORT

3) is full of non(WP)-citated, WP:OR, whole paragraphs of it.

4) omitts established WP Reliable, Neutral info: Shinnick info becuase it doesn't fit the bias

5) Uses expert testimony from experts not on the right subject

etc, etc.

If you can refute any of the above, please do; but please dont make general statements, make your case for why for eg: you thing WP Neutral, Reliable material should not be included? Specifically address the material concerned. Why inocrrect information should be included? Why WP:OR should be included. Please attempt to do this if you think you can. You are pushing a version that is as I describe it above - this is completely contrary to stated written WP criteria. I have also not reverted most of the time, unlike you for no WP reason and against WP reasons. --Richardmalter 23:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)(UTC)

Richard, I will resume addressing single issues of the ones you raise. Here I will address the issue of NZ Tribunal inclusion in the lead-in section. You keep saying that because your assessment of the AfD was that the NZ report was not crucial for notability purposes, then we can drop it from the lead-in, and maybe even from the article. I beg to disagree with you. Even if I agreed with your assessment of the AfD that the NZ report is not crucial for notability (which I don't), that is immaterial. The AfD normally addresses notability, to decide whether the article stays or goes. If it's not notable, all further discussion is essentially moot, whereas if it is notable, then we can roll up our sleeves and fix it up and bring it to WP standards (assuming it's not already there). So even if I hypothetically agreed with you that the NZ report is not crucial for notability purposes, it is still very crucial for the lead-in, as it is the only reliably sourced mainstream medical or scientific review we have of BDORT. Since BDORT is definitely a primary focus of the article (it dramatically adds to Omura's notability - much of the AfD as well as most our discussions here are focused on BDORT), its only known evaluation by a mainstream scientific body belongs up front and center in the lead-in. Any attempt to remove it from there would be non-neutral. Thanks, Crum375 23:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I think your logic is incorrect. Assuming the article is Notable in itself, what WP criteria exactly are you quoting that says that an assessment of the subject of an article needs to go early or first in the article (and cant equally go lower down as in a normal encyclopedic entry!)? You also do not take into account point 5 above. Again you are very selectively applying WP criteria. You can continue to argue till you are "blue in the face", but I will insist on consistent application of WP criteria. And again, I note that you do not challenge the WP improperness (1-5 above) of Arc.'s, version. I do not intend to shift focus away from these very obvious documented WP problems. I will not agree to a version that is so obviously contrary to WP guidelines, and therefore do not agree to you reverting to this. --Richardmalter 01:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I'll deviate from my rule and address both your points. As far as why the NZ report has to be in the lead-in, the lead-in must contain a summary of the main points of the article. The article has a primary focus on BDORT so BDORT must be in the lead-in. The only scientific mainstream assessment of BDORT that we are aware of, i.e. the NZ report, must also go there. These are the highlights of the article and as such are part of the lead-in summary. Anything else is contradictory to WP policy. For your convenience, I am quoting from Lead Section:

The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establishing context, and defining the terms. It should contain several paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies, if there are any. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, should be written in a clear and accessible style, should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text, and should encourage the reader to want to read more.

Now let me address your point #5, which is "experts not in the right subject". I simply disagree. This is a medical question, and these are medical experts. All MD's are trained in Physics, Chemistry, Biology and other related sciences in addition to medicine proper, since the human body is a machine that obeys the laws of nature. I don't see any problem with the opinions these eminently qualified medical experts provide to the Tribunal in their testimony.

Thanks, Crum375 01:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, yes, thanks for quoting that, its very helpful. BDORT must be in the lead in. Though, establishing context - should of course logically mean: alternative medicine, diagnostics, innovations, etc. This is straightforward. Unless, and only unless, though, since its a controversial topic, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable is determined to be the Tribunial event. ie We need to decide once and for all what I tried to get determined a month ago, and thought was, but obviously not:

Is this entry Notable in itself or does its Notability depend solely on the Tribunial issue??

It's a binary answer we need. Until this is resolved we will have a problem from the start it seems.

However, yes, regardless of the Notability decision, somewhere within several paragraphs at the beginning (ie not necessarily in the first paragraph which is obviously saying up front "we dont rate it"), we need to summarize the Tribunial event, and what it decided and what they said (however NB: not selectively omitting any direct quote because it doesn't fit with what anyone likes, and without any WP:OR). Arc.'s version is far from all this.

Re: point 5. You answer in a very general way and do not actually address the precise point. You also actually confirm the precise point I make by omission, which is a case of QED. You write: All MD's are trained in Physics, Chemistry, Biology - but you cant continue to say ,electromagnetism because they are not. But Omura's BDORT depends according to him et al (their published papers by MDs/PhDs) on an "electromagnetic resonance phenomenon" that no one of the Tribunial experts is qualified to comment on whatsoever. This is completely and very clear. [BTW see Becker, Oshman, Lipton et al - all eminent and well-known and some of them famous MDs and PhDs in orthopedic surgery, cell biology and electromagnetism in human beings, for a review of what the human body is in fact - verified scientifically by standard double blind controlled research published in top USA and international mainstream medical and scientific journals, electromagnetically, and which is not taught in medical schools (largely because drug companies cant profit from electromagnetism)]. However, the training of MDs is not the topic here. Only the relevance of the expertise of the Tribunial contributors - and the very plain fact is that they were not experts in the required field: electromagnetism. At all. I know the dislikers of BDORT and Omura do not like this fact, but it is a fact anyway. You note partially correctly (only partly because you evoke an outdated mechanistic, reductionsist paradigm of the human body) since the human body is a machine that obeys the laws of nature - the laws of nature are - ask any physicist - in a large part, electromagnetism. [If you read the literature I quote above, you will get fuller information on this, for your interest. To give you a hint, Becker's famous book is entitled: The Body Electric - to repeat, it is full of information scientifically proved by repeated, standard, double blind, controlled, research, all published in top USA and international mainstream medical and scientific journals. Its a great read. Perhaps you will start to see why there is so much institutional bias against a medical procedure that involves electromagnetism (BDORT). If you research the history of your country, you will find that nationally, electromagnetic medical treatments were outlawed about a 100 years ago for no good reason other than mainly huge financial interests and US military involvment; but they are gradually creeping back in again (because of mass research worldwide for eg on pulsed magnetic fields and tissue regeneration, etc)].

Again, then, we need to determine the question re Notability I re-put above; please begin. I understood Xoloz decided that the subject is Notable in itself, if he is following this, I would like him to comment clearly on this question. It is a binary answer we need. Thanks. In the meanwhile I refer you again to points 1-5 above that list how widely far of the WP mark Arc.'s version is. Why not take the version I have been working on and improve it, instead of just reverting it to a WP impossibility. Isn't this WP policy?

Conclude up to here then, that points 1-5 above I note are correct and unrefuted, of the 'improperness' of the version you et al keep reverting. That we again need to decide the Notability question. That in this discussion re my point 5 above, it is clear that the Tribunial experts were not expert in the required field.--Richardmalter 07:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Crum375, above I should have been more accurate. MDs only have necessarily(?) high school level knowledge of physics to study medicine. Certainly, without further degrees in physics, they are not capable of opining with any authority whether an 'electromagnetic resonance phenomenon' occurs or does not. They could of course actually test the BDORT - but they did not do this.--Richardmalter 10:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I added in Yoshio Manaka MD BDORT usage info.--Richardmalter 10:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard, could you expand on the "Becker, Oshman, Lipton et al" reference? If it is a mainstream scientific article meeting WP:RS that relates to or supports BDORT, I would be interested in reading it. It is not in the version I reverted. Thanks, Crum375 11:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, first to make very clear, note please that I didn't cite these refs for BDORT and am not arguing that they directly relate to the BDORT. I was showing you only and simply generally the more up to date information that exists and has been extensively documented in rigourous western scientific methodologies that demonstrates the massive (if not primary) electromagnetic functional and regulational basis of animals including humans. I thought that you might not be aware of this and I was giving you some information.

The actual WP argument is very clear. Another reiteration: the BDORT is claimed explicitly and in detail by Omura et al according to their self published papers[8] proved to be dependent on electromagnetic (EM) phenomenon - one very specific one. The experts in the Tribunial in no way had any degree of education that enabled them to consider the EM nature of the BDORT. That is it. It is simple, straightforward, and common sense (as well as WP criteria re experts as I have quoted WP texts). Omura's self-published material is of course not WP:OK. But the accuracy of reporting what he claims is. Then, in order for us to have an 'assessment' of it that is WP:OK, we need a recognized expert in the required field: advanced (quantum) physics/electromagnetism. None of the Tribunial witnesses have this qualification. They are for WP purposes, non-experts in regards the BDORT.

For your further personal interest, here are some starting off links that you may like to follow up on: [9] [10] [11] [12]. The last one has some on line reviews that will give you further info about the book's content if you are thinking of reading it at any time. Lipton's research demonstrates that the cell mebrane is actually the cell 'brain' and that anything from expression of genes to signals activating or not human lykocyte antigens is under the major influence of (environmental) electromagnetic fields. But you wont find this in mainstream medical textbooks - because of political/financial vested interests - but the research has been carried out, published, peer-reviewed etc regardless of mainstream trends. Hope that is of some interest to you.

Meanwhile I will revert to a more acceptable WP version. Please continue to refer to points 1-5 above, that list the WP: NOT OK status of the version that you keep reverting, against WP criteria. I again ask you to improve on the WP:OK version rather than just deleting it. Thank you. --Richardmalter 02:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added in a Controversies section in the lead in section viz Crum375 quote of WP Lead In criteria. Its a bit repetitive in the article, but maybe it will also lead to an agreement here.--Richardmalter 02:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I am sorry but I still don't see any neutral scientific review of BDORT besides the NZ report. OTOH, despite the clear requirement by WP to include it, as I explained above, the NZ report is still missing from the lead section in your version, in addition to many other problems. I believe, as I mentioned above, that the NZ experts are fully qualified to make their judgments about BDORT. Hence I am reverting to the version that includes the NZ review in the lead section and is supported by reliable sources. Crum375 11:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, you are doing again what you have done before repeatedly, ignoring WP criteria when it does not fit with the article you seem to be aiming for. Your remarks replied: the Shinnick trial is the only WP:OK assessment of the BDORT; The NZ report is mentioned as a summary in the first WP:lead section/several paragraphs of the article. To want it to go in the first paragraph is not WP criteria unless Notability of the article depend solely on the Tribunial events; you "believe" that the NZ experts were experts in the field of electromagnetism - but you do not present any evidence to support your belief, there is none. Personal beliefs are not WP:OK. In contrast I have WP:set out that they were not WP:experts for assessment of BDORT. You have again reverted to a version that ignores points 1-5 above blatently ignoring WP criteria, without any attempt to remedy this. I will revert it on this WP proved basis immediately. I will request outside help if you do not cease your current course of action. --Richardmalter 11:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a grand waste of time, I have put in another RfC. If that doesn't work I'll trudge through the Mediation process.--Richardmalter 12:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard, you keep ignoring my point that the NZ Tribunal report, the only neutral and scientific evaluation of BDORT, should be in the lead section. I would gladly accept any help from any neutral party to improve this article. Crum375 12:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, the NZ Tribunil is in the lead in section which is defined by WP as "several paragraphs". If you can refute that this is what WP says then please do, otherwise, we have to conclude that this is a personal preference. Again please refer to my points 1-5 for actual discussion of actual points.

WP:3RR

Richard, you are again in violation of the WP:3RR rule. As you know, each such violation can lead to blocking, and multiple ones may lead to prolonged blocks.

Regarding the lead section, I think you are simply confused. The lead section is everything from the beginning of the article until the first section. Our first section is the 'BDORT test'. Normally for non-trivial articles the lead-in and the first section are separated by the TOC, as in our article. So as of now, your version is simply unacceptable.

For convenience in counting, here is your latest 3RR violation sequence:

Original version: 11:16, August 5, 2006

1. revert on 02:28, August 6, 2006
2. revert on 11:52, August 6, 2006
3. revert on 12:17, August 6, 2006
4. revert on 23:31, August 6, 2006

This is your second 3RR violation in the last few days, and IIRC you were already blocked once previously.

Crum375 00:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, you have also violated the WP:3RR rule:

1. 12:21, 6 August 2006 Crum375
2. 12:15, 6 August 2006 Crum375
3. 11:16, 6 August 2006 Crum375

if you do so again I will equally report you. The way I see it you must be consistent in your use of WP rules and applying them.

Now to your comment. I see what you mean. I will adjust it now. I would like very much if when I present an argument to you conclusively, and for which you have no WP:OK response - as I have done above on many points - you would also act similarly, to create a multilateral editing process. ALL other arguments you use must have WP reasons. So far, what has happened, is that when people don't like what WP guidelines result in, they start to either make general remarks that dont actually address the points (professional politicians do this all the time), else they insist on their opinion (as you have done), based on their predilections, "belief", etc. This is a huge waste of time for everybody. Not least because it will never result in a stable article and is sad (mis)use of WP.--Richardmalter 00:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard, thank you for finally understanding the lead section issue.

Now maybe you can read up on WP:3RR and see why I did not violate it, and why you did. (Hint: count) Crum375 01:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Done, as above. Please again refer to my points 1-5 above and discussion already had on them for further discussion here before making any changes - then please improve. Thanks.--Richardmalter 01:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I am happy for you to explain the 3RR rule if you think I have not understood it correctly - you reverted 3 times within a 24 hour period.

In any case please refer to points 1-5 above.--Richardmalter 01:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The WP:3RR allows you at most 3 reverts in any 24 hour period. You had 4 reverts in 24 hours, which is a violation (and as I mentioned repeated violations as in your case can result in longer blocks). Now even 3 reverts in 24 hours is frowned upon, in fact even 1 revert (for non-vandalism content dispute) is considered too many and bad form. The reason I need to revert you is simply because you are a clear and classical case of non-WP:NPOV editor. You make a living selling BDORT, which was considered "unacceptable and irresponsible" by the NZ Tribunal. By my logic, and I suspect most Wikipedians, you should refrain from editing this article but you don't. You edit it in a way that tries to show the NZ Tribunal did not really specifically address BDORT, and you push Shinnick and his paper as if it's WP-acceptable as a scientific article where it is definitely not so. Unlike others however, I believe in the WP process, and have no doubt that one way or another, this article will end up looking exactly the way it should, which is not far from the version I am reverting to. Crum375 01:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, ditto, or words to that effect. While I don't share Crum375's optimism as to ultimate outcome given our differences in assessment as to WP's chances of penultimate if not indeed ultimate (is there an ultimate?) success, I'll do what I can, time and other commitments permitting. Matter of principle and all that foofaraw ;) Arcsincostan 01:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

ps: Dontcha luv it when a person who thinks you're wrong tries to prove you right? ;) Arcsincostan 02:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Formal apology needed for (near) public slandar from Crum375

Crum375, however much you would like it to be true, you are factually incorrect. I do not "make a living selling BDORT". You make a gross misrepresentation of me and my work, publicly, and I ask you to make an unqualified apology publicly here. If you do not I will follow whatever WP process to make your remarks stand up to wider WP community scrutiny. To set the record straight, which I have done previously (but you have ignored because it did not fit with what you seem to like). I practice Japanese-style acupuncture. I work in a clinic with a medical doctor and a naturapath. I am very proud of the work I do. Within my acupuncture practice I use the BDORT - sometimes, as a small part of what I do; I have already described this previously to Arc. If you read my website you will be able to see this. If you interpret what you read differently you will be making the silly mistake of telling me what I do and do not do technically (which unless you are highly experienced in my field you do not have the ability to comment on).

Your pseudo-authoritative comment about needing to "revert me" is therefor meaningless (to WP).

Your comments above also reveal finally your real bias. In simple terms, reading between thre lines, you seem to be saying loud and clear that you want this entry to express as negatively as possible the BDORT - since that is your understanding and opinion.

However all of that does not matter a jot.

You have to stick to WP criteria.

I have described accurately, points 1-5 above, how the version you like to revert is not possibly WP:OK. You or anyone else have not been able to refute these very clear, simple (WP:OK or not OK) observations.

You can note that when you make a valid WP point, I respond immediately.

You never do the same.

If you want a real WP discussion then we can have one; otherwise its just a great big POV effort on your behalf.

When I prove WP points, like the Shinnick info is Reliable, Neutral, Peer-Reviewed etc (viz the very criteria you stated in minute detail), you et al come up with arguments about the relative peer-reviewedness of the article; and other such nonsenses. When even that does not work, you et al just call me names.

When I insert other fully-citated, WP OK information, you automatically delete it.

I will request Mediation shortly.

In the meantime, your apology is pending.--Richardmalter 04:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have asked the Mediation Cabal for help. [[13]] --Richardmalter 04:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard, here is your quote:

I work in a clinic with a medical doctor and a naturapath. I am very proud of the work I do. Within my acupuncture practice I use the BDORT - sometimes, as a small part of what I do

Please note that I never said you only sell BDORT for a living. I simply said that you sell it for a living. I doubt there are many people who exclusively sell only a single product or service for a living. The difference with most people is that the product or service you sell has been declared as "unacceptable and irresponsible" by a medical review board in New Zealand.[14] If you, or anyone else, believe that this is libel or slander, please explain how and I will correct my statements appropriately. Crum375 04:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A personal attack, Richard, is completely out of line. You owe Crum375 an apology. Arcsincostan 07:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikpedia's Limitations . . .

Are, granted, in my estimation profound. They are not likely so profound, however, as to prove a sustained point of entry for a coterie of delusional pseudoscientific claimants attempting to reassure themselves, if not the world, that they are of consequence other than to themselves.

Translation: Put up or shut up.

Arcsincostan 06:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, again you omit that "that the technique which Dr Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent.". I do not use the technique that Gorringe used (whatever that was). Moreso, many medical doctors consider kinesiology to be clinically very significant (do a little research). You are simply selectively quoting re your bias of wanting this WP entry to say what you personally think, which is not on. You have now indeed made the silly mistake of trying to tell me what I do and do not do. I do not "sell" anything (regardless of your american-capitalist english usage). You have zero technical understanding or experience in my field (that you have ever mentioned). Yet you are stating what I do and do not do. I consider that the decent thing for you to do is apologize. --Richardmalter 11:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard, we have been through this many times before. The NZ panel did recognize that Gorringe's variant differed from Omura's method, but lumped both generically. Its evaluation of BDORT/PMRT was generic, and hence applies to any Omura/BDORT/PMRT variant.

As far as your occupation, if per your own words you use BDORT in your work, as long as you get paid for it (and you did not mention that you work for free - if so I stand corrected), you are in fact selling your services and/or BDORT to the public. I am not sure what, if any, this has to do with 'American capitalism'.

As far as my own specific knowhow or expertise - according to WP requirements all an editor really needs is the ability to read entries and judge the reliability of sources. I consider myself reasonably qualified for both, although I am fully aware of my limitations. I am more than happy to be critiqued on any point I raise. Thanks, Crum375 11:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WP Criteria need to be followed

To keep the situation very clear: you et al are pushing a version that:

1) selectively quotes from a report (to fit a bias); does not contain direct quotes that do not fit that bias from the very same source. This is usually termed censorship.

2) has factually incorrect description of the BDORT - the main topic after the bio.

3) is full of non(WP)-citated, WP:OR, whole swaths and paragraphs of it.

4) omitts established discussed ,WP Reliable, Neutral, USA Board Certified MD peer-reviewed info: Shinnick info, becuase it doesn't fit the bias. Also omitting Manaka info for same reasons.

5) Uses expert testimony from experts not on the right subject, based on Crum375's "belief" etc

If you can refute any of the above, please do; but please dont make general statements, make your case for why for eg: you thing WP Neutral, Reliable material should not be included?

Specifically address the material concerned.

Why incorrect information should be included?

Why WP:OR should be included?

Please attempt to do this if you think you can. You are pushing a version that is as I describe it above - this is completely contrary to stated written WP criteria.

These are the specific points I am waiting for the mediation Cabal to help out with. --Richardmalter 11:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I regret that despite voluminous discussions, all recorded for posterity in this Discussion page and its Archives, we are still going around in circles. We have discussed ad nauseam every point you raise. I think your idea of bringing in a mediator is worthwhile, and I am looking forward to it. Crum375 11:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent Addhoc Edits

Seem in every way fine to me. The entry is now more clearly presented than ever, and lets the facts, as sourced, speak for themselves. Arcsincostan 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My only concern is that the disclaimers, that there are no credible scientific validations for any of the Omura claims, are not prominently displayed near each such claim. I suspect WP policy is that such disclaimers are needed in close proximity to the claim, possibly in the same paragraph or at most in the same section. I will let other neutral and WP-knowledgeable parties chime in, however. Crum375 15:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies require that articles have a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and that all material, without exception, has references (WP:V). Addhoc 16:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with you about neutrality and sourcing. So if a person makes an incredible-sounding claim for which we have no reliable source, we would normally drop the claim. However, if the person happens to be the subject of the article, and the incredible claim happens to be his claim-to-fame, then the situation is different, since we can't just drop the claim. In that situation, either we include a reliable source that substantiates the claim, or alternatively we (as WP) state that no such substantiating source could be found. Once such a source is found, that disclaimer will go. If anyone sees it differently, please feel free to comment. Crum375 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's difficult, having been involved for such an insane interval with attempting to maintain the encyclopedic integrity of the entry in the face of single-minded POV-pushing by proponents of Omura to have a clear, objective perspective. The entry as edited by Addhoc seems solid to me – clearly presented, well and properly sourced, NPOV. Arcsincostan 16:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, exceptional claims require expceptional evidence includes "claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community". So there shouldn't be a direct claim that contradicts the scientific consesus. However, the article could indicate the claims have been made and give appropriate weight to reputable scientific sources. Given there are sufficient sources indicating this, disclaimers shouldn't be required. If you are going to use a disclaimer it should be in template form such as {{Fact}}. Addhoc 17:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that either is a reasonable position. It may be simpler, though, particularly given the disposition of the proponents, to eschew the 'disclaimers.' In any event, the facts, as clearly described, seem to me to speak clearly and powerfully for themselves. Arcsincostan 17:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, {{cite needed}} is just a temporary crutch, and is highly discouraged. In principle, an item should either be there or not, but not be there with the {{cite needed}}. In our own case, the issue is that we have a claim that is not substantiated by reliable sources, but we must include it since the article is about the claim or the claimer. Hence we are forced to state a claim that has no acceptable backup. In such as case, we must include a statement to "make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy." (see WP:RS). Crum375 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no firm position on this as of yet. Only tentative. Question: Is the overall balance and tenor of the entry such that there is no need for an item-by-item statement that no reliable evidence has as yet been found or indeed known to exist? Is it necessary or best to include such with effectively every item? Is this sort of question best left to the entry as a whole? Arcsincostan 18:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I fully agree that in principle, an item should either be there or not, but not be there with the {{cite needed}} and I would extend that to including disclaimers. Addhoc 18:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc, you may be missing the point. The disclaimer is not an original introduction of fact that would require a citation. It is a WP statement about a claim that is unsourced, but is allowed to stay because it was made by the article's subject. It essentially communicates to the reader that the claim is unsupported by any reliable source that the WP editors have been able to find thus far. If anyone at any future point does come up with a reliable source for the claim (note that WP:RS does not mean it must be convincing or a majority view - only conforming to WP sourcing requirements), then we will gladly include that source next to the claim. But until then, the claim cannot live on its own, as it is potentially misleading.

Now comes Arcsincostan's point about the location of the disclaimer. Is it enough to just have it once in the lead section, for example? In my understanding of WP, that would not be sufficient, as some readers may not notice it in the lead, may not realize which specific claims it applies to, and may just copy/paste or focus on a single passage from the middle. In my opinion anything short of a proximate location for the disclaimer near the unsourced (or improperly sourced) 'extraordinary claim' could be misleading. Thanks, Crum375 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If the disclaimer is a WP statement about a claim then {{cite needed}} or similar templates such as {{pov}} should be used. However, I agree with Arcsincostan, "the facts, as clearly described, seem to me to speak clearly and powerfully for themselves". In this context, I would prefer to manage without disclaimers. Addhoc 19:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc, I think you are still not quite there. If this were simple statement of fact, say "X has been known to play cricket", and an editor is quite sure s/he read it somewhere but can't find the source at the moment, then WP gives the editor a short grace period to come up with the appropriate WP:RS to back up the claim. In the meanwhile, as a reminder, {{fact}} could be used so that we all understand the claim is 'under construction'. If the proper source is not found within (say) a few days, then any editor can just eliminate the entire statement. When the original editor finally finds that CNN article that describes X playing cricket, (assuming this is all relevant to the article of course), then the claim can be re-introduced.

The above was the common/classical case. Now imagine a case, where we have in an article about X, a claim by X that he can fly like bird, after he eats spinach (say). Now if there were an independent scientific publication in a respectable scientific journal that showed how when X ate the spinach he could in fact fly like a bird, we could cite it and include the claim.

But what if there is no such paper in a neutral respectable journal? What if the only references we can find are not scientific, or published on X's own journal? In other words what if we decide the references fail WP:RS? Since the claim is extraordinary, we don't expect any quick source to show up in days and in any case WP expects us to find extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims, so we could probably not allow the {{fact}} anyway. We could drop the claim, but what if it is essential to X's notability? Then we are down to only one option as I see it, and that is to include the claim, but add an editorial comment, explaining that there is no valid scientific proof of the fact that X can fly like a bird after eating spinach.

The only issue that remains is where exactly to put that note, or disclaimer, and as I explained above, leaving it only in the lead may cause confusion and some readers may miss it, hence it must be added near each statement of the extraordinary claim.

I am open, as always, to comments. Thanks, Crum375 19:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that you are proposing a new approach that would have require a wider consesus in the Wikipedia community. Have a look at the Uri Gellar article, I don't think such "editorial comments" are required. Addhoc 19:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Uri Geller case is very different. In his case his extraordinary claims were in fact examined by many scientists, and many reliable sources exist that evalaute his claims. In our case we only have a single neutral, scientific and otherwise RS source that examines the some of the claims. For other claims, e.g. Solar Papers, we have no WP-acceptable evaluating source. Note again that by 'source' I don't mean necessarily a proof of 'correctness' or validity of the claim, but any neutral scientifically acceptable evaluation with any conclusion. As far as this requiring some new WP policy, I think the existing WP:RS policy is quite clear. We cannot include any unsourced claims, or any claims by a tiny minority. In the latter case, we may include it in its own article, which is what we have here. But then we must carefully, as always, source any claim. If we cannot find an acceptable source, we are still urged by the policy to "Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy" - this is exactly what our statement that there is no valid scientific proof of the claim is for. Thanks, Crum375 19:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, my position is that you could add {{fact}}, but if you were to reintroduce "no scientifically viable explanation is known to have been credibly presented as to how or why this method would work..", then WP:V applies. In this context, unsupported statements could be removed. However, I still agree with Arcsincostan, "the facts, as clearly described, seem to me to speak clearly and powerfully for themselves". Consequently, I would prefer to manage without disclaimers.Addhoc 20:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the part that bothers you is that the 'disclaimer' sounds too much like someone did a scientific study to refute the claim. What if we said something like: "There are no known scientific evaluations of this claim at this time". BTW, whatever we decide, would have to apply generically to all similar cases. And although I agree with you and Arcsincostan that the "facts speak for themselves" overall in the article, my concern is for the casual reader who may only grab a snippet and take away an impression that the extraordinary claims, say for Solar Papers, are actually somehow validated, because I saw it in Wikipedia. That reader may totally miss the lead section and the NZ section, where the NZ report is discussed (which BTW does not address Solar Papers). I have serious doubts that WP would want the article to remain in this way, as it could be misleading. Crum375 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Another idea if the above won't fly: for the BDORT-related claims, we can state: "these claims were evaluated in the context of the NZ Tribunal Report, and found to be without scientific merit". For the Solar Papers and anything not included in the NZ report, we can leave my above "unevaluated" language. Comments? Crum375 21:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, instead of 'there are no known scientific evaluations of this claim at this time", I would prefer subtle rephrasing using words such as "unproven" or "alleged". However, I am not convinced the solar paper theory should be mentioned without appropriate secondary sources. Addhoc 21:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I will not continue asking for what I consider basic decency and will not discuss it further.

I have made the following edits:

1) added in reliable, neutral, MD peer-reviewed: shinnick info; citated manaka info.

2) if has been characterized as pseudoscience/quackery, then no reason to balance and add in what is has also been characterized as, by a Reliable, Neutral source.

3) added in in both places the direct quote from the Tribunial differentiating BDORT from Gorringe's methods.

4) deleted the whole paragraph Affiliations/Credentials as complete uncitated WP:OR.

5) put in technical correct Description ( deleted technically incorrect description)

6) only credible evaluation etc is opinion. Who says the Shinnick research was not credible?

7) Trial experts not on electromagnetism: deleted that section - article cannot present information as expert opinion if the experts where not qualified. Reiterating, Omura has published extensively and particularly based on his research that the whole thing relies on an electromagnetic resonance phenomena - no Tribunial witness was qualified in advanced physics to comment on this claim/idea/published papers.

--Richardmalter 21:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc, I took up your suggestion and improved the article as I explain immediately above; Crum375 reverted seconds later. I can not stop the edit war unilaterally.--Richardmalter 21:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Noted, hopefully we can discuss a compromise. Addhoc 21:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc, 'alleged' I think is frowned upon by WP. 'Unproven' may be OK, but I am not sure if it's sufficiently clear or strong for for 'extraordinary' claims.

Richard, we have been through all these issues countless times. My responses are all on the record in this Discussion page. If you want me to address any specific point, then as before, pick one point, and we'll discuss it at depth again. Otherwise, the current version is close to neutral and complete in my opinion, and unless we reach a consensus for change, I think it should continue to stand. Thanks, Crum375 21:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Another WP:3RR

Richard, this is another violation of WP:3RR. As you know, you can be blocked for prolonged periods for multiple 3RR viloations:

Original version: 13:35, August 7, 2006

1. Revert: 22:15, August 7, 2006
2. Revert: 05:35, August 8, 2006
3. Revert: 11:32, August 8, 2006
4. Revert: 21:12, August 8, 2006
5. Revert: 21:25, August 8, 2006

I hope this is clear enough. Crum375 22:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Focus?

I've just attempted to sharpen focus of the sections on Selective Drug Uptake and Special Solar Energy to see if that might of itself at least in part address the 'disclaimer' issue. More than open to any thoughts or suggestions as to whether or not they in any way actually help address the perceived issue. Arcsincostan 06:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A bit further effort along the same line, attempting to scrupulously maintain NPOV, relying strictly upon the cites presented, to let the matter speak for itself. As always, more than open to criticism, suggestion, improvement. Arcsincostan 06:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel no proprietary interest in this or any other aspect of my contributions to the entry. If the judgement of other, more objective parties, is that the material is best presented in this, an earlier, or other form, that's perfectly fine with me. Arcsincostan 07:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

CENSORSHIP

Crum375, It seems you are now just being a vandal. You delete my edits which were citated etc, with no explanation whatsoever. This is just called censorship.-

Crum375, we have been through these points, and in each case you had to resort to "belief" etc - since it was a case of QED each time after we argued through and you could not come up with any kind of WP reasoning against any of the points. The problem for you was you did not like it, that is all. All you can do is threaten rules instead. Because two of you can out-revert me; not much ethic there is there.

I'll wait for mediation to stop this. A stable article will never result from this though. If necessary we will go as far as needed with mediation. --Richardmalter 07:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Try looking up the word 'edit.' Arcsincostan 08:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Petulance and wounded pride constitute a limited form of argument. Arcsincostan 08:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Closure

I'm out. Arcsincostan 08:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Compromise version

I have made some changes and removed some disputed sections. The result is there is substantially less difference between the two parallel versions [15]. Could we agree a compromise version to prevent this edit warring that discourages other users? Addhoc 13:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that while I find some aspects of the changes to represent real improvement in presentation, I find the overall compromise to represent an utterly inaccurate presentation of the information available. In that sense I judge it completely misleading and completely unacceptable. I'm no longer interested or willing, however, to participate in this process, having done what I could, and having had far more than enough of it, so I'll simply leave the matter in the hands of others otherwise inclined. As I said, I'm out. It's all yours. Arcsincostan 15:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments. In the context of being new to this article, I am not surprised that my first efforts at some form of compromise aren't entirely successful. I hope that you reconsider and don't leave the project as your contributions have been appreciated. Addhoc 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken, and I wish you well. The process, however, has been infinitely prolonged and time-consuming, and there is no end in sight. Time to cut losses and move on, at least for me. Arcsincostan 16:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Adhoc, as you of course guess I agree with your edits. But what is also wrong with:

"Omura is the originator of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT), which is in part a form of applied kinesiology[2]. It is the subject of controversy and has been characterized as both pseudoscience, [3] and also as "a sensitive diagnostic screening method"[4]. Omura has also developed an extensive and wide-ranging series of other alternative medicine techniques derivative of and dependent upon the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test for their application and evaluation, all of which are presented in Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics Research, The International Journal, of which Omura is Founder and Editor-in-Chief, as well as in seminars presented by Omura and his colleagues.[5]"

I dont mean the exact wording, but the fact that if we are going to characterize opinion about the BDORT, surely it is balanced to say also that it has been characterized very favourably as I cite above.

Next point is that I think it is accurate and correct to include the quote word for word from the Tribunial that I included in this paragraph, beginning "it would appear .. ":

I think on this point Crum375 is accurate, they did generically lump the BDORT together with PMRT, and give their opinion about it. But they did make a certain distinction earlier - qouting them ver batim stops any idea of interpretation - will just let the reader decide. It is so critical that I cant see how it can not be included. Again I am not arguing for my exact wording, just the gist, but I think my wording is actually OK WP wise(?).

"The main focus of the controversy around the BDORT, is the evaluation and judgement of Peak Muscle Resistance Testing by a mainstream medical body, the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand. In the course of its consideration of the case of Richard Gorringe, who was charged with and ultimately found guilty of professional misconduct and disgraceful conduct, fined, and stripped of his license, although the Tribunal made no clinical assessment of the BDORT or PMRT, and stated earlier on that "it would appear . . . that the technique which Dr Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent", the Tribunal’s final opinion was ‘...there is no plausible evidence that PMRT [which they meant generically to include the BDORT] has any scientific validity.’[6] "

Also for plain accuracy, wording needs to make clear that they did not clinically test the BDORT, they opined about it - and we need to make this distintion.

Next thing, is I cannot see any reason not to have the Shinnick and Manaka sections included. The first is a Reliable, Neutral publication, USA Board Certifeid MD Peer-Reviewed research paper. No WP argument has ever been given here for its omission. Please have a look at the way I worded it, I think I did not ever not write "according to" etc - ie I just reported it simply.

Similarly the Manaka paragraph.

Also I cannot comprehend why anyone objects to a correct description as opposed to a technically incorrect one! in the Description para. Put in all the "according to " in the world if that helps.

But I cannot see any WP reason against any of what I write above, and every WP reason for them.

I appreciate your time and input very much, thank you.Richardmalter 21:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Arc., I'd like you to stay around too. But note please, just as you previously appealed to my common sense in the past, I I listened and said so publicly that I would consider seriously what you wrote, that in what you write just above here, you do not give any actual specific WP reason for not liking the edit, you seem to just be saying it doesn't fit with the way you think the article should be. I am completely wrong?Richardmalter 21:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, firstly, thank you for discussing this. Obviously, it would be preferable if we had just one version of this article, even if that version wasn't perfect. I'm guessing "if a sensitive diagnostic screening method" was included in the introduction, "quackery" would have to be also included. Similarly, if your two paragraphs were included, I'm guessing at least two other paragraphs are going to have to be reintroduced. Addhoc 21:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc, I think I see it as very clearly (WP) better not to exclude information. If people have characterized BDORT as "quackery" then that's how it is. I am only saying balance and no omissions for non-WP specefic reasons. So I think the latter option is hugely preferable. Also the same re the two (deleted) paragraphs (BTW there is no WP reason not to include them and every WP reason to include them as I have set out in detail repeatedly). Thanks genuinely.Richardmalter 00:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Out

I have devoted what time and effort I have devoted to date to the shaping of this entry as a matter of principle. I cannot, however, transcend the limitations of this process. Let the cards fall as they will.

I’m out. Arcsincostan 04:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I have left a message on Addhoc's talk page for you and him pointing out your repeated mistake in my regard.Richardmalter 05:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Image

Is there a diagram or photo showing the BDORT technique? Personally, as someone who is new to this subject, it wasn't immediately obvious what the technique involved. Addhoc 11:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[16] Here is a picture (lower of the two on the webpage) of Dr Shimotsuura demonstrating with Effie Chow. She is holding a laser beam and a 'Control Reference Substance' (CRS) - a microscope slide of maybe a virus, in the same hand, while he performs the BDORT. This is termed the Indirect method. It is explained that when there is 'electromagnetic resonance' between the 'preserved' electromagetic field (EM) of the molecular structure of the CRS and say, the same EM field of living virus in the subject's body, this 'meshing' of identical EM fields will be detected by the forward cells of the pineal gland (which are known to be light/EM sensitive) and via a cascade of chemical reactions will affect her grip strength under certain defined conditions. The 'information' (quantum physics sense of the word) of the EM field of the live virus is propogated from the subject back up the laser beam, according to Omura et al to mesh with the CRS. [17]. In the Direct method, she would not be needed, and the subject would touch the surface of his skin with a brass probe etc and his other hand would be BDORTested. The details of what happens with the fingers are here be Shigeaki YAMAMOTO MD.: [18] see points 2,3. Hope that helps.Richardmalter 11:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is why I have pointed out the simple fact, that the Tribunial experts were not qualified to assess this EM phenomena as happening or not. Their titles may be impressive; but they are not experts in the field that covers the key claim by Omura et al. All anyone can really say accurately is that the Tribunial gave an opinion about PMRT in general. But if we read the comments of one of the experts when he says something like even if an EM field was created by these tiny samples it could no way be big enough to electrically stimulate the nervous system it is clear immediately that he is thinking about it in a completely different way to Omura's 'mechanism' - simply because he doesn't have the knowledge to do otherwise, which is the point, he is not expert in the field of EM. Also the EM basis of the human body has long been established, as I pointed out to Crum375 etc, [Robert O Becker et al] have shown that very very minute EM fields even in the vicinity of people have enormous effects on the body, for example. So there is nothing new here.

What I think people confuse with regards to this trial, is the behaviuor of Gorringe and the BDORT (that he did not use). But because the Tribunial lumped the BDORT generically with PMRT (partly because they didnt have enough knowledge of EM phenomena to be able to assess Omura's papers etc), anyone like Crum375 with the bias of (who did not declare this a long time ago and strung me along, but see your talk page for his comments that confirm this) wanting this entry to clearly 'warn' the public of the their perceived 'dangers' of the BDORT and its acceptance in any way, will argue somehow that what I write above is a fiction. But you cant get round the fact that Omura is saying that the BDORT depends on EM phenomena, and so someone with expertise in that field needs to evaluate it. The other thing to do is test it yourself which takes a few seconds and costs US$10 - the price of a microscope slide of an organ tissue, which is what this lot did [19].

Crum375 has ruled that a number if websites I have shown are not admittable to WP - which I would like to have reviewed for above mentioned reasons, but I'll wait with that for later.Richardmalter 11:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Richardmalter 11:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Would Be Proud

Add, I think you ought be congratulated. You've produced an advocacy piece for Omura. I'm sure Jimbo would be proud. My congratulations. Arcsincostan 01:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Arc, does this indicates you are going to be editing this article again, because your involvement would be highly appreciated. Addhoc 09:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• It does not. Arcsincostan 02:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc, as a concrete proposal re the first bit, I suggest it says, that the BDORT has been characterized as "a sensitive diagnostic screening method",[Shinnick citation], a "valid and potential method of diagnosis and therapeutic[s]"[20], quackery[citation] and pseudoscience [citation]. In any order anyone prefers.

I dont think anyone can argue that that would not be a balanced characterization of it.Richardmalter 10:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, regarding the substance of what Arc is saying, I would reiterate that I would prefer if there was a single version of this article, even if this version is far from perfect. Regarding your comment Richard, that would be ok, provided Crum375 consider this reasonable. Another option would be that Crum375 writes a paragraph about the quackwatch article and you include a paragraph based on the acupuncture journal. Addhoc 11:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Process

Wikipedia is founded on a number of premises, the most critical of which is that ‘truth’ or ‘useful information’ is best or at the least usefully approached through an accretive or aggregative rather than a syncretic or synthetic process. This is a false premise. The result is an emphasis on social process rather than resulting information. I have no interest in that process. I devoted some small time and effort in an attempt to assist in the fashioning of a useful entry, which time and effort have proven pointless. I see no point in continuing that effort. You have my best wishes. Arcsincostan 05:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, what do you think of my proposal? --202.136.36.20 09:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And who are you, praytell? Crum375 12:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

lol Arcsincostan 16:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

202: Don't ever play poker or negotiate a deal lol Arcsincostan 18:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see I wasn't logged in. I wrote the above. What do you think of this proposal? Each 'side' gets two citated representations that can be included in a characterization of the BDORT? I wont argue about the order of listing - any you like. We say its controversial and been potrayed as X,Y,Z.Richardmalter 05:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Side A: The pyramids were built by The Egyptians.

Side B: The pyramids were built by Aliens.

Okay, let's include equal time, for each, as negotiated by proponents, with citations and a notice of controversy. Arcsincostan 06:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Although this could surprise Arcsincostan, I virtually agree. In my view the introduction should have coherence, for example, indicating that BDORT is psuedoscience is ok. However, I have concerns about indicating that BDORT is psuedoscience, a sensitive diagnostic method and quackery in the same sentence. However, I wouldn't have concerns about separate paragraphs describing how BDORT is regarded by skeptics and accupuncturists. That said, if Crum375 and Richardmalter agree on an introduction, then obviously I won't complain too much. Addhoc 10:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this approach. I think we need to first agree on the WP-acceptable reliable sources. Then, and only then, can we hash out a neutral way of presenting that information, both in the lead as well as in the body. The issue is not wording - it is sources. Crum375 13:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense, could you indicate which of the sources used you have concerns with? Addhoc 14:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc, I know you came in late and have not had an opportunity yet to read over our history, where all my objections to inappropriate sources are documented and thoroughly discussed. However, to make it easy for all of us at this stage, I recommend to create a list right here in the Talk page of all acceptable reliable sources. As far as evaluating the scientific merit of BDORT, I am only aware of one reliable source which is the NZ Tribunal's report. If anyone wants to add another reliable source for BDORT evaluation, lets discuss it here. Thanks, Crum375 14:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In my judgement Crum375 is quite correct. Arcsincostan 15:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont disagree with this approach; though it is going over the whole thing again. Also from experience now, it will take a while; in the meantime the article in current version says high up its characterized as pseudoscience etc but not as anything else which is very clear filtering of information available, the tribunial assessment etc, this is certainly not balanced and can we remedy this in the meanwhile, Addhoc?

Addhoc, out of respect, I'm going to hold off the edit button for a little while, but please note that the pseudoscience citation link does not contain this word at all. This is WP:OR and opinion 100%. As one of the Admins told Arc a long while ago now - unless there is a very good reference for the use of this word, it cant be used. This is not an acceptable WP citation for stating this characterization at all. Lets have some WP basics please straightaway. I know everyone has biases here, but the kind of bias that allows completely WPimproper citations and disallows WPproper ones is not on at all even for a minute. Richardmalter 21:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, there apppears to be a reference for quackery, but not pseudoscience. Addhoc 21:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

lol luv it Arcsincostan 21:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've swapped quackery for pseudoscience, if that isn't ok, then just undoing that last change would be fine. I understand that a mediator from the cabal (which apparently doesn't exist) has been appointed. Hopefully, an edit war isn't going to break out before he gets here... Addhoc 12:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello everyone. I represent the Mediation Cabal, where Richardmalter filed a case regarding this article on 2006-08-07. The case can be found here. After reviewing everything here, I see that the article has undergone several changes since Richardmalter filed the case, and indeed seems to have reached somewhat of a "stable" version. I also see that Richardmalter has not edited the article or commented here for several days.

Can anyone tell me how I should take this? Does it mean that the troubles have been addressed? Does it mean that everyone has at least agreed on a way to resolve your disputes? Just asking how I should plan to proceed. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for taking the case. The compromise version that I edited towards, probably isn't very stable... both Richard and Crum have indicated they are considering reverts. Entirely up to you how to proceed, however possibly you could gain agreement that any changes are discussed on this page first and only implemented after there is a consensus. Addhoc 16:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find that add's take is correct. Richard is champing at the bit to let the world know of the clearly demonstrated scientifically proven efficacy of finger separation and the application of paper that's been exposed to sunlight to cure the world's ills, and crum is an old fuddy-duddy who thinks such claims are just the least bit extravagant and might require some sort of tediously conventional sourcing. Arcsincostan 21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Aguerriero, thanks for the attention. Addhoc is definitely right, the version up at the moment is very unstable, and an edit war probably looming the minute mediation would disappear - which has been taking place thanks to Addhoc so far, gratefully. I have only not edited because of respect for Addhocs input; and hope that things will improve soon.

For example, some information that is just as reliable and neutral and citated as information up at the moment, like the "quackwatch" characterization, is censored - because some people dont like it. This hardly makes a balanced article and so can never be stable. Other information that is 100% third party, neutral, reliable and peer-reviewed is entirely censored - because people dont like it. Other citations that dont fit with the likes of others is also automatically deleted. A correct technical description, for some unexplained reason on the planet, gets deleted everytime I attempt to put it up. etc. WP rules have been ignored, stretched to mean things that no one has agreed them to mean before, and flatly overturned etc to fit likes and dislikes. It has also been attempted to personally and repeatedly misrepresent me in order to support those likes and dislikes.I would welcome your input definitely (without any intention of bearing on Addhoc's considerable help so far). So input very welcome. Thank you.--202.136.36.22 23:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, obviously Aguerriero is the mediator representing the Mediation Cabal and my involvement was only that of an ordinary user. As it happens, I think his timing is excellent, the truce probably wouldn't of held much longer. Addhoc 23:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aguerriero, welcome and thanks for trying to help. I got into this article in a similar way as you, trying to mediate (very informally in my case), but as of today, I essentially support Arcsincostan's version (would like to add a few more disclaimers) as well his current status analysis above. Thanks again, Crum375 23:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you’ll find, Aguerriero, that the divide is fairly straightforward: I’m the original creator of the entry. (I used a number of different handles at different points, an old habit from chatrooms where I would change handles to reflect a change in ‘personality.’ I apologize for any confusion in following the record, but you’ll find I was very straightforward about it and there was certainly no overlap in timing, and no sock-puppetry.) RichardMalter is a proponent of alternative medicine and of BDORT. He acknowledges this disposition, and he is a professional, though, as he has been quick to note, BDORT plays a comparatively minor role in his professional practice of alternative medicine. I’d also note, for whatever it may be worth, that my judgement of Richard is that he is motivated primarily by his sincere belief in the efficacy of this approach. I, for my part, am perceived by Richard and other proponents, as biased against them. My own perception would be that my judgement of the claims of Omura and his proponents is very negative for the simple reason that they make absolutely extraordinary claims, act as if those claims are ‘obviously’ scientific and scientifically established, yet have, at least in my judgement, absolutely no credible independent validation of those claims, nor is there any evidence that they have ever sought such evidence. The ‘scientific’ basis of their claims seems, at least to me, to consist of a small circle of self-published and self-promoting folk. I think, though, again for whatever it’s worth, that they are on the whole very sincere in their belief in what I perceive as a self-affirming self-confirming delusional belief structure. Crum375 entered the process, as he notes, in an attempt to moderate. He is dedicated in the extreme to WP ideals. I, for my part, frankly think WP is ineffective in an entry of this sort – too few eyeballs on the entry, as it’s too obscure, and too-dedicated proponents who see other perspectives as ‘biased’ ‘hostile’ or ‘censorship.’ Crum can, of course, very well speak for himself, but I would say, as viewed from my perspective as derived from his conduct with respect to the entry, that he probably concluded over time that he was shall we say amazed at the extraordinary claims made, and at the lack of credible scientific evidence for them, plus the fact that the only credible review, that of the NZ commission was highly negative, plus the dedication of Omura and his proponents to shaping the entry to their understanding of reality – that it’s obvious well-established scientific fact that aliens built the pyramids. At a number of points we’ve had drive-by reshaping of the entry by either Omura or his proponents. They radically altered it, simply placing long rambling claims of being proven by evidence of Japanese TV shows and all sorts of incredibly prestigious this and thats – all with no cites. When these were reverted there were at a number of points defamatory attacks made on one or more editors of the article claiming extortianate plots against Omura as the motive for the critical character of the entry and insisting WP do something about it. There have been none of these of late for whatever reason, and Richard is the sole proponent – a very dedicated one at that. You may easily judge the tenor of his argument and his evidence for yourself without need for summary introduction, thoough I would note that the points he is making now he has made many, many times, and that no one finds the evidence or sources of the proponents credible who has seen the entry as an outsider. Add is a recent visitor from another planet of goodwill who has attempted to moderate, though I would say he erred initially in giving too much credence to the postion of a proponent of an extreme belief structure. Various claims of distortion and misrepresentation are made, and you will, of course, have to judge these for yourself. It seems to me that the evidence is clear, and speaks for itself. Omura and his armamentarium are, on the evidence, quackery and pseudoscience, without any rational question in my judgement. The evidence indicates they have for many years failed to present their absolutely incredible claims to credible independent evaluation, yet persist in claiming they are well-established science and efficacious in the diagnosis and treatment of essentially any malady known to man. The simple application of the WP principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence leaves them uttery exposed, so long as they are not able to delete the evidence or skew it. You’ll have to judge, and frankly I pity you the length of the task, but I wish you well. Arcsincostan 04:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Since everyone is giving their 'opening remarks', I would like to add one more. I understand from what Crum375 wrote to Addhoc on his talk page that Crum has good intentions as I see it. I understand that he sees it that it is somehow responsible of WP to 'warn' the readers of the "extraordinary" sounding claims etc - especially in the light of the NZ Tribunial (even though they didn't actually test a single thing), so that harm wont be done directly or indirectly by contact with the BDORT. I do not disrepsect that. Of course, as I have explained repeatedly, the Tribunial of Gorringe and the BDORT itself are essentially two separate things, one a tribunial of malpractice, the other a technical question of a certain technique. I am arguing that regardless of this concern by Crum375, sticking consistently to WP criteria is the way to go, just reporting according to WP criteria - and the reader can decide for him/her self. There is also inherently no more harm in the BDORT than H2O. Most things can be used to harm or aid.--Richardmalter 05:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

How do you feel, then, about the application of magical index card paper to cure cancer? Arcsincostan 06:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Arc, if I know you, you are going to draw me into a long discussion ;-) . . . so some brief comments then probably wont have time for major debate here. 1) Does Omura actually say it is a cure for cancer, I dont think so; I think he says that it improves blood and lymph flow to an area? 2) I dont know - is the plain answer - I have zero experience with it. 3) I understand your skepticism. 4) In this case lets just report what he claims.Richardmalter 07:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, the paper cited indicates he can first diagnose 'Juvenile Alzheimer's Disase' – whatever that's supposed to be – via BDORT, then cure it with an application of 'Special Solar Energy Stored Paper' – which is, of course, an index card that's been exposed to sunlight at the optimum time of sunrise or sunset (as determined by his applying BDORT to himself), being careful to maintain 'polarity' of the index cards and to shield them from harmful electromagnetic radiation by wrapping them carefully in aluminum foil – plus cilantro and other herbals. He both 'diagnosis' and 'cures' the malady solely as determined by BDORT. No other tests or lab work. It's in the 'Journal,' Richard, and it's cited, if memory serves. He also reports in one of his papers an instantaneous cure of rheumatoid arthritis in which the patient cried out (it's in his 'paper' as published in his 'Journal,' feel free to read it) in the finest tradition of Faith Healing 'I'm cured!' It's his report, Richard, not my parody, and much of this stuff is cited in this entry. Actually read much of it? It's fairly frightening. At least to most folks. At least to me. Richard, for pity's sake, the man says, that as evaluated by BDORT and holding up a piece of paper to the sun he can capture healing energy and that he's objectively, scientifically demonstrated this many times. But, hey, I must have a closed and narrow mind, that must be the problem, right? Bias and prejudice and unreasonable resistance to new scientific advances, right? Richard, seriously, think about it. He reports this sort of thing all the time in his little self-published 'Journal.' If it's so easily demonstrated why the hell doesn't he demonstrate it for someone of skeptical mind in the real world, blow them away, and get written up? Ever wonder about that? Does it really make any sense? He claims he can, via Selective Drug Uptake selectively target medicines to particular tissues or cells. Has he ever once, over the years, produced lab work for this in a neutral source? Richard, if he hasn't, why the devil would anyone believe it? Step back a moment. He has only published with people disposed favorably to believe in the possibility of these things. If they are in fact scientific, objective, repeatable, then they should work in front of skeptics. The NZ commission made precisely that point – that the theory, whehter EM or whatever, is in a sense irrelevant. There are many things in science that have been shown to be real, repeatable, and yet we don't understand them. The theory of his 'discoveries' doesn't matter. Only one thing matters – can they be objectively demonstrated to work with rigid, scrupulous, skeptical analysis – that's what science is, Richard, and you know it. All you have to do to convince me, at least, that these things can be done, is to conduct a rigorous demonstration. Just once. It's been years he and his little band have been doing this, Richard, and you know it, and he hasn't submitted to that kind of credible scrutiny even once. Unless it was done in Area 51 by aliens who were sworn to secrecy. Why the devil do you think people are skeptical? Because these are extremely dramatic claims with nothing objective behind them. Nothing. Not a damn thing. If there is, really, not just some sympathetic sloppy claim of triple-blinded meaning people closed their eyes, then where the devil is it? In dimension 97xq? For pity's sake, man, phone earth. Arcsincostan 08:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Arc, I'll only comment on what I know about: the BDORT (resonance phenomena). You are like a man telling an experienced bicycle rider that when he peddles the bike the back wheel connected by the chain doesn't go round. I know it does, I have repeated it many times. That website in Brazil of the MDs there tells the same story - they did try it blind twenty times: reread it. The Shinnick article (which is a shorter version of the printed one) confirms the same thing. You are not the only one on the planet with a brain. These people are not all morons. Their livings do not depend on the BDORT. I have seen Omura do the cancer diagnosis, and find cancer in the quadrant that the subject afterwards confirmed was cancer positive by previous standard medical tests (that she did not relate in any way to him before the screening). And also find cancer that was unknown to the subject. The whole thing was not fabricated, the Brazilians were not fabricated, Dr Yamomoto and his clinic in Japan is not a fabrication, etc. It works, however much you are skeptical, the power of your healthy skeptism doesn't change this fact. The valid point you repeatedly make about no outside test of it is not equal to a determination that it doesn't work. That's an important point to make. Take Robert O Becker for example. When he discovered the DC current system in the perineural cells (by rigourous blinded animal-'sacrificed' standard scientific research) he did not issue a global call to have his findings validated. He published his findings and let the world read about them if they chose to. Sometimes, he relates, no one wanted to publish his research because it was so controversial and apple-cart upsetting. On one occasion when he had electron microscope and photographic evidence to accompany his conference presentation of his findings, the distinguished medical audience just resorted to heckling him for no other reason than that his findings upset their theoretical world. Omura gives public demonstrations - my colleague recently saw him in an acupuncture conference in Europe give a cancer diagnosis demonstration in front of 200 people - that's good publicity. Omura probably finds himself in a similar situation to the one Becker related. The thing works, if we lived in the same town I would give you a demo inside of ten minutes. You are reasoning (to me) which is sound and logical and intelligent; but when the facts contradict the reasoning, however good the reasoning, the reasoning becomes just that . . .a good bit of reasoning. The facts remain despite them. Take it easy. Richardmalter 11:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

1) The claims you make of personal witness are of the same form as those made for the healing power of prayer, or for the Roman Catholic church’s claims of miracles for the establishment of sainthood. They are anecdotal, faith-based, and not possessed of any scientific validity.

2) The instances you cite, and have cited on innumerable occasions, would not generally be viewed as reliable or reputable. They mimic the form of standard scientific practice, but have no established credible independent reputation. They are comparable to ‘scientific’ journals on UFO/alien phenomena and the like.

These points are confirmatory as to the pseudoscientific character of these efforts rather than refutational. They are of the ‘put aside doubt and believe the Truth’ form and are not arguments of appropriate form, nor evidence, but invocations of faith.

Faith is a glorious and a wonderful thing, which like many another wonderful and glorious thing may be abused or applied inappropriately. It is most certainly not science.

Omura’s armamentarium is magical, not scientific, and the form of your argument makes that point in its efforts to deny that point. Arcsincostan 19:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If this [[21]] list of Becker’s publications is accurate and representative (I haven't thoroughly researched him – I'd be happy to see a more accurate CV for him if this is lacking in any way) it seems to me problematic. Though I haven’t the cite to hand, and I don’t ask you take my word for it, on an earlier occasion when you mentioned Becker I did some googling and came across a ref where he noted that he left Syracuse because they were no longer willing to fund or back his researches. Whether this was closed-mindedness on their part or there were personal or interpersonal issues or that he’d in some sense gone off the deep end I frankly have no idea whatsoever. It would seem, though, that for many years now he’s presented himself principally as an alternative medicine person with the credibility represented by his work many years ago in a more conventional framework. As has, in a sense, Omura. You will note from this cite that while there is a good deal of ‘conventional’ work it was long, long ago, the most recent of it some 25 years ago. You will note, too, that he’s published since leaving a more ‘conventional’ framework, only in popular mass-market work and – surprise – with Yoshiaki Omura’s journal in 1987. That this establishes scientific credibility for Becker, his researches, or Omura, somehow escapes me. As Omura’s work, it suggests the formation of an hypothesis, but one never actually demonstrated in other than the most anecdotal form, never credibly presented, simply a self-reinforcing faith-based belief structure. This may be worthy of note as a phenomenon, but it is not worthy of note as a scienfiic phenomenon, rather only as a form of pseudoscience or quackery. Arcsincostan 20:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone!

We have a great springboard to get started. Later today I will post an official "mediation" section where we can hammer everything out, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction. I will likely make a subpage to this talk page. Talk to you later today! --Aguerriero (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to it, Aguerriero. It ought prove interesting. Arcsincostan 19:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Arc., I think of you as one of the many 'armchair experts'. I also reckon we could talk forever. I think the best thing we can do is just stick to a strict WP criteria discussion as I have suggested before.Richardmalter 21:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I claim no expertise at all, nor is any required. The claims advanced have never, on any evidence yet presented nor known to me, been presented to meaningful scrutiny. The burden of proof is on the maker of claims to miraculous cures, not on the skeptic who doubts those claims when the only 'evidence' presented, at least to date, has never been presented, let alone sustained, on critical scrutiny. Let Omura pulls his fingers apart and identify some objectively assessable property and the world will be dazzled. Yet, on evidence, he and his friends are content to pull their fingers apart in private, while you claim the world resists their obvious scientific status. There are many names for this sort of finger-jerking, some of them are considered something other than scientific. Arcsincostan 23:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Opening Mediation

To all interested parties: please proceed to Talk:Yoshiaki Omura/Mediation and review what I have written, and sign. I will proceed once I have everyone's agreement. For the sake of organization, everything mediation-related will now be discussed on that subpage. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)